A REVIEW OF RECENT DATA FROM THE REGION OF THE ARK-SHAPED FORMATION IN
THE TENDUREK MOUNTAINS OF EASTERN TURKEY

Have the searchers for Noah's Ark focused their attention on the wrong
mountain? Dr. Shea discusses evidence for the Ark's remains in another location  the
Tendurek Mountains of eastern Turkey.

I. The Search for the Ark on Mt. Ararat

Through the centuries there have been isolated attempts to locate
Noah's Ark, but these searches have only been pursued with particular vigor and
persistence since World War II. The basic bibliography of materials relating to this
search has been compiled by Violet M. Cummings (1). While there are some exceptions to the
format (2), more recent books and movies on this subject generally begin with a
condensation of her materials followed by a description of the author's expedition to the
traditional Mount Ararat (3).
The results of these investigations might be summarized as follows.

Cummings' literature survey shows that there is no evidence earlier than the 4th century
A.D. which identifies the traditional Mt. Ararat (Bü Agri Dagh) as the site where Noah's
Ark landed (4).

Aerial photographs of this mountain have located the supposed outlines of Noah's Ark on
a ledge overlooking the deep Ahora gorge (5).

Old wood has been brought down from this mountain on two occasions, by F. Navarra in
1955 and by the SEARCH group in 1969 (6). The wood, obviously hand-tooled, is said to be
white oak and has been radiocarbon dated on several occasions to the second half of the
first millennium A.D. (7). Considering the fact that these are the only significant
results that have been produced by more than thirty expeditions to Mt. Ararat over the
past two decades (8), these rather meager findings raise the question of whether the
search is located in the right area.

Because of adverse political conditions, such searches have been
almost completely suspended for the past five years. Two expeditions to Mt. Ararat were
planned in the summer of 1979, one of which did at least travel some in eastern Turkey.
Since no results of these attempts have been publicized as yet, I suspect that whatever
they were able to accomplish in the field was not of major importance and does not change
the picture of the results summarized above to a significant degree.
There are a number of reasons why such meager results might have been
expected from this mountain, and these may be itemized as follows:

Genesis 8:4 merely locates the landing site of the Ark in the "mountains"
(plural in the Hebrew) of Ararat. While the traditional Mt. Ararat does lie within the
territory that once was ruled by the ancient kingdom of Urartu, the name of which is
related to the biblical name of Ararat, Genesis does not provide any specific evidence
that the mountain upon which so much effort has been expended by these expeditions is the
correct one.

Identification of the Ark's site rests upon a very late tradition from the Christian
era. This same era was one during which an extensive pilgrimage mentality developed in
Byzantine Christianity. Armenian Christian inscriptions, for example, are known as far
south as the vicinity of St. Catherine's monastery in the southern Sinai peninsula.

Deprived of any of the sites that Jesus visited personally, Armenian Christians quite
naturally developed a pilgrimage tradition connected with something close at hand. From
this line of thought it is easy to see why the site where Noah's Ark landed came to be
attached to the traditional Mt. Ararat  the highest, most outstanding mountain in
the region.

Evidences for pilgrimages up this mountain have been found in several stations located
at intervals along the trail, each having eight crosses carved in the rock face of the
mountain. These have been documented in Bart LaRue's movie on the search for Noah's Ark.
These crosses obviously were intended to represent the eight persons who were in the Ark
according to Genesis 7:7. Further evidence for pilgrimages up this mountain comes from
Armenian inscriptions at its foot, some of which have dates in the second half of the
first millennium A.D.

Armenian Christian pilgrims ascending this mountain may well have built a shrine to
venerate Noah. Since the pieces of wood brought down from the mountain date to this
period, the most logical suggestion for their origin is from such a shrine. One can argue
about the corrections necessary for radiocarbon dates from the 2nd millennium B.C. and
earlier, but no valid reason has been advanced to explain why these radiocarbon dates from
the 1st millennium A.D. should be discounted (9). Since they are compatible with
historical data in the vicinity of this mountain from this period of pilgrimages, it is
natural to associate them with this development.

Scientific evaluation also poses problems for the identification of Agri Dagh as the
mountain upon which the Ark landed because of its volcanic origin and its isolation from
other nearby mountains. In addition, the glacial action of the ice pack high on that
mountain makes it unlikely that any original Ark wood could have survived the millennia
since the Ark supposedly landed there.

In summary, the traditions which have located the landing site of
Noah's Ark on Agri Dagh are quite late, dating only to the first millennium of the
Christian era. Since many of the holy sites venerated by Christians of the same period in
Palestine can now be demonstrated to be historically and archaeologically incorrect, there
is no particular reason why this tradition in Turkey should be an exception. These
erroneous holy sites in Palestine represent cases in which a knowledge of the authentic
site was lost within a few centuries. How much more then is the Mt. Ararat tradition
questionable, since it is only attested in sources separated from the Flood by millennia?
Aerial photography, radiocarbon dating of the wood, and scientific evaluation have not
indicated that any remains of the Ark still are on Mt. Ararat or even that this was the
mountain upon which it landed. Perhaps other locations in this region should also be
considered in the search for that site.

II. The 1960 Expedition to the Tendurek Mountains

The only other site in this area which has received some attention
in the search for the Ark is an isolated and unusually shaped formation at the 6,000 foot
level of elevation in the Tendurek Mountains. It is located about 30 miles southwest of
the traditional Mt. Ararat and about six miles west of the town of Dogubayazit, the home
base of the expeditions that have attempted to climb Mt. Ararat. In the winter of 1959 a
Turkish army captain named Ilhan Durupinar noted a ship-like outline in some aerial
photographs of eastern Turkey (Figure 1). When news of this discovery reached the United
States, an expedition to visit that site was organized. The story of this expedition has
been told by R. Noorbergen in The Ark File (10). On the negative side, the
members of the expedition found no archaeological evidence for the Ark and consequently
abandoned any further study there. On the positive side, the expedition confirmed the
measurements of the formation that had previously been determined from the aerial
photographs. The ship-like shape of this formation measured 500 feet in length, 150 feet
at its widest point, and 20 feet high.
Two main criticisms might be made of the 1960 expedition. First, no
geologist was included in the group, although the site turned out to be more of a
geological problem than an archaeological one (see below). Second, the group might have
abandoned its task prematurely. Influenced, at least to some extent, by second- and
third-hand stories from then-deceased, elderly former residents claiming that the Ark was
still intact at the traditional site, the team broke off exploration of this site rather
abruptly when it did not meet their expectations that were based upon perhaps exaggerated
legends. Given the millennia that passed between the Flood and 1960 A.D. when this
expedition took place, it was rather unrealistic to expect that the Ark survived whole and
intact.

Noorbergen's The Ark File was published in 1974. After
reviewing the evidence from the chapter of his book that deals with the 1960 expedition
and corresponding with a geologist who had visited the site in 1973, I published the
suggestion that this formation should be reevaluated as a possible location of Noah's Ark
(11). Such a reevaluation should be undertaken without preconceived opinions about the
kind of evidence we should expect from such a site.
From aerial photographs this formation looked as though it lay in a
former lava flow (see Figure 1). Since no remains of the Ark are visible, it was suggested
that the Ark may have burned as the result of volcanic activity. The precise nature of the
flow around this formation has yet to be determined by direct geological observation. In
the summer of 1977 a geologist suggested to me that this was a Pleistocene mud flow, but
he still had no explanation for the ship-like formation itself (12). Since the length of
time from the flood must be measured in millennia, it is also possible that the remains of
the Ark eventually disintegrated from weathering and decay. In either case the Ark itself
would not remain, but rather a mold or cast of its hull made in the mud now hardened at
the site where it came to rest.
The first point of special interest is the formation's obvious
ship-like shape. On this I wrote earlier:

One need not be an expert in geology, archaeology, or nautical engineering
to see that the outline in the photograph above obviously resembles that of the hull of a
ship. This was what brought it to Ilhan Durupinar's attention, this was what caused some
commotion when the aerial photograph of it was published in Life magazine, and
this was what led to the 1960 expedition that went to examine it.
The expert in aerial photogrammetry from Ohio State University who read
the film said of it before going to the field with the expedition, 'I have no doubt at all
that this object is a ship. In my entire career I have never seen an object like this on a
stereo photo.' This formation certainly does have the outline of the hull of a ship, which
is a fact that no one has denied (13).

Some have objected on occasion that if this formation were related
to Noah's Ark, it should have been more rectangular in shape. This criticism rests upon a
preconceived opinion about the design according to which Noah's Ark had to be built. The
biblical measurements for the Ark provide no direct indication of the hull's actual
design. The same measurements have been applied to modern ships of a comparable size,
which certainly do not have rectangular-shaped hulls. While the Ark was only intended for
flotation and not for propelled navigation, a ship shaped like the outline of the Tendurek
Mountain formation would probably have been less susceptible to damage in high seas than
would a more rectangular hull. At the very least the shape of the Ark's hull is an open
question that cannot of itself negate the possibility that this formation could be related
to it.
The second impressive point about the Tendurek Mountain formation when
compared with the biblical description of the Ark is its measurements, especially its
length (Figure 2; Table 1). Genesis 6:15 gives the measurements of Noah's Ark as 300 × 50
× 30 in terms of cubits. The measurements that appear with the plans of this formation in
Noorbergen's book are 150 × 48 × 7 meters respectively (14). According to the second set
of more accurate measurements taken from the aerial photographs, this formation is said to
have measured 500 feet long and 160 feet at its widest point (15). Though the ground
measurements have not been reported in detail, they were said to confirm the measurements
made from the photographs (16).

FIGURE 2. A schematic comparison of the measurements of the Tendurek Mountain
formation with the biblical measurements for Noah's Ark.

To compare these two sets of figures it is necessary to estimate the
length of the cubit employed in the biblical record for the dimensions of the Ark. The
length of the cubit varied from place to place and time to time in the ancient world (17).
While the use of an antediluvian cubit cannot be ruled out, it is just as likely, if not
more so, that these measurements were given in terms of postdiluvian cubits. It is
suggested by the very use of the Semitic word for cubit here, since it derives from a
particular postdiluvial language family. It one compares the Mesopotamian cubit of 19.6
inches for the Ark's cubit with the original measurement of 150 meters for this formation,
they are just about the same, at 490 feet.
In the times of the Israelite monarchy the Hebrew cubit varied from the
"old" cubit of 17.5 inches (2 Chronicles 3:3, Revised Standard Version) to the
"long" cubit (Ezekiel 40:5; 43:13) which was approximately equivalent to the
Egyptian cubit of 20.6 inches. Moses has been credited with the authorship of this passage
of Scripture, and the cubit with which he was familiar during his Egyptian education may
well have been the standard by which he set down these figures. If one compares the longer
measurement of 500 feet for this formation with the biblical measurement for the length of
the Ark according to the Egyptian cubit, then the latter comes out only 15 feet longer
than the former. Since minor variables are involved in both figures they should not be
pressed too far, but even allowing for such variables it is obvious that they correspond
very closely.
This boat-shaped formation currently averages around 20 feet in height
along its outer margin. By any standard of cubit, that is less than half of the 30-cubit
height of the Ark given in Genesis 6:15. The way in which it was proposed above that this
formation may have been formed, however, would suggest that it never was as high as the
side of the Ark, even before significant weathering took place here; consequently, this
discrepancy is not significant. However, the discrepancy between the width of these two
objects is significant, since the 50-meter width of this formation at its widest point is
about twice as wide as the 50 cubits of Noah's Ark. Several possibilities should be
considered when an explanation for this discrepancy is sought.
In the first place, we do not know precisely how this biblical
measurement for the width of the Ark was made. The ancients practiced mathematics
differently than we do now in some respects. The use of inclusive reckoning whereby any
fraction came to stand for the whole is one example (cf. 2 Kings 18:9-10). If some sort of
averaging was employed to measure the width of an elliptical hull, then that figure might
have come out differently than the way we now measure the widest points on this formation.
Secondly, assuming that the figure originally written in the biblical
text did represent the width of the Ark at its widest point, we should consider the
possibility that this original figure could have been garbled in the course of its
transmission through successive recensions of the biblical text. The study of textual
criticism clearly indicates that numbers were a feature of the text that suffered from
alterations most easily in the course of their scribal transmission.
We also should allow for the possibility that this formation may now be
wider than it was originally. It is interesting to note in this connection what marine
archaeologists have learned about shipwrecks that have rested on the bottom of the
Mediterranean Sea for centuries and millennia. As ships have disintegrated, in some cases,
sections of their hulls have fallen outwards (18). While the conditions under which these
ships fell apart were not identical to those obtained in the Tendurek Mountains, it is
possible that any remains of the Ark here could have suffered a similar fate.
Another possibility is that a geologic event(s) could have caused some
spreading or fracturing. We now know that an earthquake damaged this formation between the
summers of 1977 and 1979 (see below). Since this formation is located in a geologically
active region, such damage could also have occurred in the more remote past.
Perhaps the most important point about this comparison of measurements
is that its length corresponds quite closely with the measurements given in the Bible.
Even if the bow and stern had fallen off as it disintegrated, the measurements of the
remains of the Ark's length would not have altered significantly. Since the Ark was only
1/6 as wide as it was long, however, destruction or disintegration could have altered its
configuration and dimensions more significantly in width. In other words, when compared
with the biblical measurements of the Ark, the length of this formation is of greatest
significance, its width is of intermediate significance, and its height is of least
significance. In the dimension that counts the most  the length  the fit
between this formation and measurements of the Ark in the Bible is most precise.

IV. The 1977 Exploration of the Tendurek Mountain Formation

In the summer of 1977, independent of the article I published on
this subject, Ronald E. Wyatt of Madison, Tennessee, visited this site to investigate its
possible relationship to Noah's Ark. Although he was not able to explore the formation
itself as thoroughly as he wished because of difficulties with the local villagers, he
still made a significant finding in the vicinity of the formation.
There are two roads  one to the northeast, the other to the
southeast  leading to this formation in the Tendurek Mountains. Wyatt approached it
from the former route in the summer of 1977, whereas the 1960 expedition approached it
from the latter route. He was thus able to make observations that could not have been made
by members of the 1960 expedition.
The distance from the northeastern road to the ship-shaped formation is
about two miles. About halfway there, Wyatt came upon a cemetery which did not look as
though it has been used in modern times. Of itself this cemetery is not particularly
remarkable for our present purposes. What is noteworthy is one of its stones that is
distinct from those used as headstones.
For the purposes of our continuing discussion this stone has been
designated Stone A. A similar stone, designated Stone B and described below, was found
one-half mile west of Stone A. A side view of Stone A is shown in Figure 3. No
measurements of this stone were made, but it is about the same height as Stone B, or about
eight feet. The specific configuration of this stone is important. Broad when viewed from
its side, it is relatively thin when viewed from an edgewise profile or end on. Byzantine
crosses have been carved on one side. Further details can be determined by comparison with
crosses carved in Stone B (Figure 4). More significant is the round hole that can be seen
along its upper edge from the side view.

Wyatt has suggested that these distinctive stones should be
identified as stone anchors. The leading authority in marine archaeology on the subject of
stone anchors is Honor Frost. She has contributed a number of studies on this subject, her
best summary statement being published in 1973, "Ancore, the potsherds of marine
archaeology: on the recording of pierced stones from the Mediterranean" (19). Her
study provides a useful background against which these two pierced stones from the
Tendurek Mountains can be evaluated as possible stone anchors.
Most of the stone anchors from antiquity have been recovered by divers
from the floor of the Mediterranean. The stone anchors found in excavations of sites on
land, however, are particularly important because they come from archaeological contexts
that can be dated with relative accuracy. Stone anchors excavated on land have come from
temples where they had been set up as sacred objects, from tombs, from stonemasons'
workshops, and from the walls of various kinds of buildings where they were used
secondarily as building stones. Most of the stone anchors recovered from the sea floor
come from the shallows where ships that could not sail against contrary winds had to drop
anchor and wait for more favorable conditions until they could resume their voyages. From
the archaeologist's point of view, the number of stone anchors lost at sea by ancient
ships appears to be "inexhaustible" (20). Lost stone anchors mark ancient
sealanes and hint at the habits of those who used them. Unfortunately for professional
archaeologists, many stone anchors have been removed from the ocean floor by amateur
divers without any recording of such finds. From Frost's corpus I have selected here five
examples of some of the largest stone anchors known (21):

An Egyptian anchor inscribed with the hieroglyph nfr which means, "good,
perfect, beautiful.'' Excavated from a stratum dated to 2200 B.C. in a temple precinct at
Byblos on the coast of Lebanon and now housed in the Beirut National Museum. Weight: 188.5
kg.

A limestone anchor excavated among votive obelisks in a temple at Byblos dated in the
19th century B.C. This triangular type of anchor was typically Byblian. Estimated weight:
30 kg.

A Ugaritic anchor from the temple of Baal on the coast of Syria, possibly from the 19th
century B.C. level. Such anchors were squatter, thicker, and heavier than those used at
Byblos. Weight: 700 kg, one of the heaviest if not the heaviest of stone anchors ever
found.

An anchor used as building stone on Cyprus in the 13th century B.C. It is similar in
shape to Ugaritic anchors. Estimated weight: over 500 kg.

An anchor found by the sea wall of an ancient port on Cyprus. Its incised script was
dated to the 14th century B.C. Tapered at the top, it has a large rope hole. Estimated
original weight: 150 kg.

The coming of Iron to the ancient world around 1200 B.C. brought the
development of iron anchors and a decline in the use of stone anchors.
Pierced stones at either extreme of the weight range, wherever found,
are the easiest to date and identify. They are consequently the most significant, but
(particularly on land) are often cast aside. Not fitting in with preconceived notions,
they are considered to be too big or too small to have served as anchors. Anchor stones
that are too heavy for one man to handle (i.e., in the 50-700 kg range) will, however,
almost certainly antedate the introduction of metal and wooden anchors during the Iron
Age. Once lead-stocked anchors became current on all important craft, stones became the
poor man's anchors and, since the poor man had a small boat, the size of stone anchors
diminished accordingly (22).
The general and natural rule seems to be that the larger the anchor
discovered by modern archaeologists the larger the ship that it must have been used on in
antiquity. Frost has estimated, for example, that the use of half-ton Bronze Age stone
anchors prove the existence of ships of at least 200 tons. This has implications for our
understanding of other aspects of ancient shipping:

The existence of nineteenth-century B.C. half-ton anchors at Ugarit (and in
the sea) proved that a number of Bronze Age ships were far larger than hitherto supposed
 so large, indeed, that they would have been unbeachable. As a corollary, a few
major proto-harbours must have existed along the shelterless Levant coast, in order to
ensure trading by such large vessels (23).

With this survey of Bronze Age stone anchors in mind, let us compare
the two pierced stones found in the Tendurek Mountains of eastern Turkey. In general
configuration, the latter match the former on all important counts. These two pierced
stones are, like the large Bronze Age stone anchors from the Mediterranean, tall, broad
when viewed from the side, thin when viewed edgewise or end on, tapered towards the top
and have rope holes at their upper ends. On all of these counts, therefore, they qualify
quite readily as fitting the picture of stone anchors, as Wyatt originally identified
them.
Only in size or scale do these two stones differ significantly from
their Mediterranean counterparts. They are far larger than any of the anchor stones that
have been recovered from the Mediterranean or from excavations along its coast. While the
heaviest stone anchors from the Mediterranean weigh about 700 kg and stand about 1.1 or
1.2 meters high, these two anchor-like stones from the Tendurek Mountains stand about 2.5
meters or 8 feet high. We can give only a very gross estimate of their weight, but they
must easily weigh several tons. If the size of the stone anchors implies the size of the
boat or ship on which they were used, as is the case for half-ton anchors at Ugarit, how
much more should it be true for these stone anchors weighing several tons that were found
in eastern Turkey. Indeed they are, by this standard, Ark-sized stone anchors.
Given the conclusion that these stones are anchors, we may next ask,
who made them, where did they come from, and how did they arrive at their current
location? As to the question of who made them, two current possibilities appear
reasonable. Either they were part of the original equipment of Noah's Ark, or they were
made much later by Armenian Christians to commemorate that voyage and its participants. A
later origin might be argued from the fact that Byzantine crosses were incised upon the
sides of these stone anchors. The crosses could have been cut long after the anchors had
been quarried, just as the crosses cut in the rock at the stations along the trail up Agri
Dagh were a late development.
One may question how familiar the Armenian Christians of this region
would have been with stone anchors for sailing ships. Lake Van to the southwest is the
nearest large body of navigable water, and any boats on that lake using stone anchors
presumably would have used relatively small ones, similar to the small stone anchors still
used by the fishermen in the Mediterranean today (24). If Armenian Christians had quarried
these stones to be commemorative stelae, there would not have been any real reason to bore
rope holes in them. It seems evident that these objects were recognized as stone anchors.
The least one can say is that if Armenian Christians did quarry these stones, in all
likelihood they did so to connect this immediate vicinity with the commemoration of Noah's
Ark.
The second question concerns the source of stone anchors. Since they
lie only a mile to the northeast of the Ark-shaped formation, it is likely that Armenian
Christians found them there and subsequently moved them to their cemetery. This chain of
events answers the third question of how they reached their present location. A
petrological analysis of pieces from these stone anchors would be of considerable interest
in evaluating them. Such samples should not be difficult to obtain, since the local
villagers are already chipping pieces from one of the anchors to sell to tourists as
souvenirs from the Ark!
One might object that the biblical description of the Ark and the Flood
says nothing about anchors, but neither does this argument from silence say that the Ark
did not have anchors. There were probably many things aboard the Ark that were
not mentioned in Genesis.

V. The 1979 Exploration of the Tendurek Mountain Formation

In September of 1979 Ron Wyatt returned to the Tendurek Mountain
formation for more surface exploration, accompanied this time by Manuk Benzatyan as his
translator. This time they approached the ship-shaped formation from the southeast, the
direction taken by the 1960 expedition. Of particular importance is what was seen quite
clearly along the edge of the formation nearest to them as they approached it. The
formation has been sectioned obliquely through its most distal or "stern"
portion. This section looks like a large and prominent wall angling towards the southeast.
This feature was not present in the formation in 1977 or earlier; consequently, it must
have resulted from an earthquake which struck this region between the summers of 1977 and
1979. Other signs of the earthquake were evident elsewhere in this formation. A smaller
concavity was knocked out of the north side or wall of this formation. Also seen was a
longitudinal fracture in the rocky spine that runs down most of the center of this
formation.
While one may regret damage done to a site of potentially great
interest in the study of antiquity, this earthquake damage was not without its beneficial
side-effects. In effect, it opened up a fresh section of the interior of this formation,
giving Wyatt an opportunity to collect a sample of soil from that freshly exposed surface
for chemical analysis. For purposes of comparison he also took a sample from the soil
surface beyond the geologic flow that runs by this formation.
The analysis of these specimens was performed by Galbraith Laboratories
of Knoxville, Tennessee, and their results were reported to Wyatt on October 9, 1979.
While there are some differences in other elements between the two samples (25), their
greatest difference lies in the amount of carbon they contained. The sample taken from the
recently denuded surface of the formation revealed a carbon content of 4.95%, while the
sample from the nearby countryside revealed a carbon content of only 1.88%. Thus a
difference of 3% carbon is involved here, from 5% in the formation to 2% in the soil
nearby. Wyatt was told by authorities in the laboratory that the amount of carbon in the
former sample was consistent with that which one might find, for example, in a
soil-covered peat bog. Thus while the chemical profile of this formation does not prove
the presence of disintegrated wood, it does not exclude this possibility.
Stone Anchor B was also visited in 1979. Of particular interest are the
shape and distribution of the crosses incised on the side of the anchor. Most obvious is
the large main Byzantine cross around which all of the others are grouped. Three smaller
crosses are visible in the right side, extending outwards at a 45º angle from the center
of the main cross. The innermost of these three crosses is the largest and has the more
formal Byzantine characteristics. To the right and above it is a smaller and more stylized
cross. Above and to the right of the second cross is a third that is a little larger but
also stylized.
Three smaller crosses can also be seen in the left side of the stone,
extending to the left at a 45º angle from the center of the main cross. The cross that is
outermost and uppermost corresponds to the cross in the same position on the right upper
quadrant. The order of the two inner crosses on the left, however, has been reversed. The
smaller stylized cross is now on the left while the larger cross with the more formal
Byzantine characteristics is in the middle. Another formal Byzantine cross, larger than
any of those above the horizontal arms, can be seen in the right lower quadrant.
The symbolism seems relatively straightforward. The large main cross
around which the other seven cluster represents Noah. The next largest cross, also of the
formal Byzantine type, is located in the right lower quadrant and should symbolize Noah's
wife. She was next to him in importance as the mother of his sons, and she stands under
his protection. Above the arms of Noah's cross, and thus emanating from him, is a row of
three crosses on one side that should represent his sons. The row of three crosses on the
opposite side should stand for their wives. This representation is, therefore, of eight
crosses which represent the eight persons who went into the Ark, and their crosses were
designed and distributed in a particular way to say something about each of them.
This scene on the side of this anchor stone can be used as evidence
that the Armenian Christians of this region connected these stones, and probably the
nearby formation, with Noah and his family who came through the Flood in the Ark.
Iconographically, therefore, there is an early Christian tradition that can be said to
have located Noah's Ark in the Tendurek Mountains and which probably rivals in age the one
that has located Noah's Ark on Mt. Ararat. While too much stock should not be put in Ark
traditions dating only from the Christian era, as was pointed out at the beginning of this
study, this particular tradition deserves to be taken seriously, since there is suggestive
archaeological evidence here to support it. Thus it appears quite probable that Armenian
Christians of the first millennium A.D. noted the same features of this area that have
been discussed above and also connected them with Noah's Ark.

VI. Conclusions and Prospects

The ship-shaped formation in the Tendurek Mountains was first
discovered in the winter of 1959 by Capt. Ilhan Durupinar as he surveyed aerial
photographs of this region. The 1960 expedition to that site confirmed the ground
measurements that had been determined already from aerial photographs, but further study
there was abandoned. A reevaluation of this formation was proposed in 1976 by theorizing
that it may only represent the place where Noah's Ark landed, not the remains of the Ark
itself. The three prominent characteristics of this formation that were emphasized in that
call for its reevaluation were:

It is located in the mountains of Ararat.

It is shaped like a ship.

It is the length of the biblical Ark.

The vicinity of this formation was explored again in the summer of 1977, and an
additional find was made:

Two very large pierced stones were found that strongly resemble Bronze Age stone anchors
from the Mediterranean, except they are much larger.

This formation was visited again in September of 1979, and two more finds were made:

The formation has a high carbon content which is consistent with the former presence of
wood there.

Iconography incised on one of the stone anchors indicates that early Armenian Christians
also held a tradition that Noah's Ark landed there.

Each new discovery at this site has strengthened the case for
relating it to Noah's Ark, but the question still remains as to whether there is
sufficient scientific evidence with which to confirm or deny this identification with a
greater degree of accuracy. Unfortunately, the prospects are not too bright for carrying
out the necessary field studies. Legitimate archaeological research in eastern Turkey has
been hampered by previous violations of Turkish laws. Professional archaeologists have
been caught attempting to smuggle ancient artifacts out of Turkey and in publishing
antiquities by individuals other than those to whom the publication rights had been given.
Amateur archaeologists engaged in the search for the Ark have also violated Turkish laws
on several occasions.
Thus the archaeological and political pictures in the area remain fluid
at the present time and they limit the study of this site to surface exploration only.
Since some positive results have already been accomplished, the value of this kind of work
should not be discounted. Six lines of evidence discussed above suggest a potentially
positive correlation between the Ark-shaped formation in the Tendurek Mountains of eastern
Turkey and the Ark of Noah described in the Bible. Whether or not it will be possible to
add any more lines of evidence to these remains uncertain in view of the current political
situation in the Middle East.

For a random example see the Greek ship that sank off the north coast of Cyprus
in the 4th century B.C. H. W. Swiny and M. L. Katzev. 1973. The Kyrenia shipwreck: a
fourth-century B.C. Greek merchant ship. In D. J. Blackman, ed. Marine
Archaeology, pp. 339-359. Butterworths, London.

In Marine Archaeology, pp. 397-409.

Ibid., p. 399.

Taken from Ibid., pp. 400-402. The line drawings represent the side view and the
solid drawings represent the end view. Another solid drawing representing the top view has
been added in the case of No. 1.

Ibid., pp. 404-405.

Ibid., p. 399.

Of the on-going use of small stone anchors, Frost notes: "Anchors in the
20 kg range, which can be handled by one man, are still used and manufactured
throughout the Mediterranean.... It follows that anchors in this weight range are almost
impossible to date unless they are of exceptionally distinctive shape, or happen to be
inscribed, or are associated with identifiable artifacts on the seabed." Ibid., p.
405.

The report as a whole reads as follows:

Sample No. 1
from Ark-Shaped formation

Element

Sample No. 2
from nearby countryside

0.23%

P2O5

0.28%

48.02%

SiO2

51.29%

6.56%

Fe2O3

9.71%

14.01%

Al2O3

15.27%

0.44%

TiO2

1.33%

17.41%

CaO

9.35%

3.02%

MgO

3.94%

0.17%

SO3

0.37%

3.09%

K2O

2.30%

0.94%

Na2O

2.43%

4.95%

C

1.88%

The certificate of analysis indicates the samples were received by the Galbraith
Laboratories on October 1, 1979, and were assigned the test run numbers 1-3968 and 1-3967
respectively. The results were reported on October 9, 1979 and the report is signed by
Gail R. Hutchens, executive Vice-President. Xerox copies of the originals are on file with
the editor. Used by permission of Ron Wyatt.